User talk:Tybaltcapulet
Let's not discount the Viscount Hey Tybalt, hope all is well. Naturally, your rematch attracted my attention, and so I find myself compelled to return one last time... a sort of Inquisition, if you will. Not to worry, it's a comparatively minor point, but I think it's rather important in terms of how you depict Montgomery's character. Which, at the end of the day, is what I care about. Not if he wins or loses. Just that you do him justice. if there's one thing you have to understand about Monty, it's that he was immensely ''popular with his troops! The people who found him hard to get along with were his superiors (i.e. Eisenhower). But in terms of his ''leadership ''skills and abilities, he was quite successful and made his men feel like they cared about their well-being. I will quote Norman F. Dixon's ''On the Psychology of Military Incompetence ''(New York: Basic Books, 2016), where he considers Montgomery as a complex, if overall successful, figure. (The context of the book is, essentially, an analysis of the factors in the British military that encourage commanders to be promoted beyond their talent and capability. Here's a link to Google Books, where you can preview some pages, if you're interested: https://books.google.com/books/about/On_the_Psychology_of_Military_Incompeten.html?id=nMq-CwAAQBAJ .) p. 398: "Montgomery also lacked those obsessive traits that accompany authoritarianism. He was not particularly mean or particularly obstinate and, judging from his own dress and lenient attitude towards that of his troops, did not harbour any compulsive urge for 'bull' chickenshit, in the US military vernacular." On the same page: "It seems, then, that whatever else he may be, Montgomery does not evince the well-documented signs of authoritarianism. And yet, even in his case, there remains the undisputable fact that for all his greatness as a military commander Montgomery did have serious shortcomings which ''could not be attributed to a lack of professional ability ''in original." p. 399: Dixon then details Montgomery's shortcomings as a commander. Note that Dixon attributes his difficulties in interpersonal relations to problems with his superiors, not with his subordinates. "1. An inability to get along with many of his military colleagues that this refers to his equals and superiors, ''not ''his subordinates. ... he had the knack of making himself enormously unpopular with his contemporaries and preferred the company ''of younger and more junior officers added. ... This failure to achieve rapport, even in a situation which demanded perfect teamwork, reached catastrophic proportions in his relations with the Americans after D-Day. ... 2. Montgomery's second shortcoming was that he sometimes allowed his own desire for personal glory to influence his planning. obvious, and quite fair. I don't think this point needs to be belabored, as we are all aware of Market Garden and the like. ... 3. Montgomery's next shortcoming presents something of a paradox. It concerns the matter of communication. For a man who was adept at simplifying the apparently complex..., who could communicate his intentions and issue orders to his subordinates with a lucidity that left no room for misinterpretation ''added..., it is extraordinary that he should have been almost incapable of explaining himself to those ''above ''him original." All this to say, I think you, unfortunately, misrepresented Montgomery's skill as a leader (that is, the X-Factor of Leadership). It's quite understandable, given that he is infamous for being perceived as hard to work with, but think about the sources that inform this stereotype. Where do we Americans get our information about Monty? Largely from memoirs left by his colleagues and superiors (i.e. Eisenhower, Omar Bradley, etc.) or from pop culture, specifically (and irreparably) the film ''Patton, ''which makes Montgomery look like an absolute ass... which, he was at times, but certainly not around his subordinates. Montgomery's men looked up to him and believed he had their best interests at heart. He might have been a troubled general in the sense that, on a campaign, he made things difficult for fellow army commanders, and didn't always cooperate the way they wanted him to, but don't let this unpopularity at the top deceive you--he was highly popular amongst those men who served under him. That's why he cultivated the trademark image of his beret, after all! He wanted to create an image that his men would associate with their commander, often so far away from the front. And it was effective. I'm not saying you have to say Monty is a perfect commander. He totally isn't. He has a lot to answer for with Market Garden, and with being a giant prima donna. But I think it's inaccurate to imply that he didn't concern himself with his men, or that his men, in turn, thought that he was a pompous, arrogant upstart. (And, after all, I think you'll find that being a giant prima donna isn't exactly a rare quality amongst WWII Allied generals... Patton and MacArthur included!) - the Inquisitor Hello again fair Inquisitor I see that our WW2 Inquisitor has returned to give me guidance once again. I'm really glad you came to me with this information, because I would agree it's quite important to the battle. Without this knowledge I would have written Monty as a callous and uncaring commander to his subordinates, which based on what you've provided me is very clearly not the case. Obviously since this battle is a dedication to you (and to save it from MOG), I want to represent everything the best I can. So I will be working on that shortly. And I can't respond to the first thing you've put anywhere near DF for months without asking you've been doing. It was a complete shock to all of us when you left, since it was pretty much out of nowhere(which I won't ask why because it's most likely personal), but rest assured. the wiki has been still functioning well, with several new users creating rather great content. We even have some returning users like WinterSpider and even ''Arrow came back to Discord recently. But even so we all do miss your presence in this wiki, and you are still highly respected within our small community. So there is one thing I would like to ask you. Since this battle is so meaningful for both of us, I would highly appreciate if you came back and gave a vote for it.I would highly appreciate your input on this battle which I put a lot of effort into.I'll be honest too and say that literally everyone on Discord is lobbying for me to ask to come back for good, which we would all love to happen, but we're not going to force your return if you aren't comfortable with it. But I will give you some messages from some of the other users (I mostly paraphrased what they said because direct quotes would be weird to structure) Skully- He wanted me to tell you to accept his Steam friend invite, and that he finally got better at CIV 5. He also hopes your program is going well. Beast/LB- They simply hope you're doing well. Appel- Wants to talk to you again, and also wants to apologize for going on and on about how you should watch anime Wass- He wants the Tatsu rebellion sim to be finished Leo(This is probably the only direct quote I will give)-"Get back in the discord, you anime-hating Monty-loving genius" And here's some songs from Wass and Skully https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDKO6XYXioc https://youtu.be/VastXQ_hPb0 I'll post more messages as I get more --Tybaltcapulet (talk) 16:25, October 14, 2019 (UTC)